Gandalf wrote:Then, right at the deadline for submitting minor typographical corrections (3 days I think), he 'corrected' his submission to YBaCuO. Hey, what's an extra 'b' ? Yttrium, Ytterbium, no big difference.

The journal(s) had egg on their face, the corrupt 'scientist' was discredited, and hilarity ensued.

Betruger wrote:Ironically enough this social rant of theirs is usually the only clearly articulated part of their ideas.

At 560 pages he seems to be having a good try at articulating his thoughts. The Prologue is somewhat interesting once you get past the rant on the first page.

A book provides an author with space to clearly set out the strict scientific framework from which new insights can flow logically and smoothly. A paper (or even a suite of papers) fails to provide space for such a framework. Scientific papers are written under the assumption that the readers will be scientists who are researching the same, or a closely related field. Accordingly, in a paper the description of the background against which the study has occurred is usually terse. By publishing thepresent study as a book, there is more latitude to expand on the background.

Circa 1999-2000 I succeeded in doping diamond with shallow energy donors by means of oxygen-ion implantation. I built up an experiment to attempt the extraction of electrons from such a diamond surface. An anode (small gold ball) was held near the diamond surface and a potential applied. To make a long story short, it worked. There was, however, a catch. It worked too well! After a current had been established a dead short developed between the diamond surface and the anode. This persisted even when switching the voltage off. This was NOT what I wanted. Perplexed I set out to find out “what went wrong”. After exhaustive experimenting I had to conclude that a “conducting material” must be forming between the diamond surface and the anode. No such material could, however, be seen in an electron microscope.

Furthermore, it only happened when using the n-type diamond substrate. Other diamonds did not (nor any other substrate material) roduce this effect. By an exhaustive process of elimination I had to conclude that the “material” (that forms) HAS TO consist entirely of electrons. In addition it was found that the distance between the anode and cathode did not seem to affect the material’s conducting properties, i.e. the material might have zero resistance. In fact, it could be proved that in order for an equilibrium-current to flow, as measured, it has to be zero. From the experimental data I could find a reason WHY a superconducting material has to form when electrons are extracted, but I could not really explain the MECHANISM by which it is happening. After all, when you have a collection of electrons in a vacuum, they should explode” away from each other.

Being a scientist I must, however, accept my reproducible experimental data rather than existing theories in physics. If I do not, then the whole basis on which “experimental philosophy” has been built since the 1600’s falls away.

Trouble is I can't find the book being sold anywhere, and the PDFs on the website are just excerpts.

I wonder if this has any pertinance to the Polywell...

According to the BCS theory, the electrons form pairs by exchanging phonons (quantised energy packets caused by lattice vibrations) between them. This so-called “Cooper-mechanism” is based on the tenets of quantum field theory, according to which a force between two particles is described by the exchange of another suitable particle. In my experiment the superconducting phase forms from electrons in the vacuum. There are no vibrating atoms (in the vacuum) which could generate phonons so that Cooper-pairs would be able to form. Thus, if my experiment did establish a superconducting phase at room temperature, then according to the first tenet above, the electrons had to form pairs by another mechanism. Accordingly I believed that if I wanted to model the mechanism, I would first have to find an alternative mechanism for such boson-like electron pairs to form. I set out to do this, and found a very beautiful mechanism according to which the electrons can form pairs without phonon exchange.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using precision techniques for making superconducting thin films layer-by-layer, physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have identified a single layer responsible for one such material's ability to become superconducting, i.e., carry electrical current with no energy loss.

Here we report superconductivity in bilayers consisting of an insulator (La2CuO4) and a metal (La1.55Sr0.45CuO4), neither of which is superconducting in isolation. In these bilayers, T c is either approx15 K or approx30 K, depending on the layering sequence. This highly robust phenomenon is confined within 2–3 nm of the interface. If such a bilayer is exposed to ozone, T c exceeds 50 K, and this enhanced superconductivity is also shown to originate from an interface layer about 1–2 unit cells thick.

In particularly fascinating is the fact that the electrons in graphene seem to be massless. These electrons are not, of course, actually massless. It is their interaction with the atoms in graphene that makes them behave as if they were. This means that they have properties that can only be explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. For instance, theelectrons in graphene move at a constant velocity, just as light does.

Moreover, because of the inversion symmetry breaking at the interface, the su-perconductivity may not be a simple BCS-type s-wave as in bulk SrTiO3, but may be unconventional as in the case of heavy-Fermion superconductor without inversion symmetry CePtSi3 [5]. If the superconductivity is unconventional, an unknown mechanism by which the spin-orbit interaction enhances the superconductivity might be present.

Just connecting random dots, I wonder at the combination of Prin's use of diamonds(carbon==graphene), use of oxygen doping and shallow-energy-ion-implantation forming a single layer just below the surface.)

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Not at all to Chu's surprise, some other journal with some relevance to the subject printed an article with his exact claim, but made by someone else, two weeks before Chu's original article was to be published.

Then, right at the deadline for submitting minor typographical corrections (3 days I think), he 'corrected' his submission to YBaCuO. Hey, what's an extra 'b' ? Yttrium, Ytterbium, no big difference.

The journal(s) had egg on their face, the corrupt 'scientist' was discredited, and hilarity ensued.

The journal he submitted to wouldn't have any egg on their face. The other might be emberassed, but they didn't really do anything wrong either, besides print an inaccurate article. Hopefully the reviewing scientist, on the other hand, was censured and discredited for all time.

Usually this sort of thing happens in a less egregious way. Say, the corrupt scientist gets the article for review, and wants to do some similar work/is already doing some similar work. To get his article out at the same time or soon after (which makes his ideas seem more original and prestigious), he sits on his review or recommends useless revisions to delay the article. Every now and then it becomes obvious that's happened, but it's hard to prove wrongdoing.

The mechanism proposed for superconduction in this expose explains the known properties of superconducting materials very well. It also models the measured properties of different types of superconductors, be it low temperature metals, "high temperature" ceramics or semiconducting superconductors, very well. What is especially satisfying is that a single mechanism describes all these different materials.

The proposed mechanism is NOT based on the requirements that electrons MUST pair and the resultant boson charge-carriers MUST then form a Bose-Einstein Condensate. In fact, the superconducting phase that forms in highly-doped p-type diamond can be adequately modelled in terms of the coherent tunnelling of holes; which are fermions. Although one can argue that the charge-carriers are all in the same minimum energy state as required for a Bose-Einstein Condesate, the dielectric array which is required to manifest can be understodd in terms of an array of separate entities; i.e. localised states. The role that quantum mechanics plays is through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship for energy and time. This allows the charge-carriers to "tunnel" so that they can increase their velocities without increasing their kinetic energies. Thus, a mere absence of scattering of the charge-carriers, although necessary, is not (on its own) sufficient to ensure that superconduction will occur.

No "virtual" phonon interaction is involved to "bind" eletrons together. [Prin's postulated model] explains why high quality conductors like gold and copper do not display superconduction.

Not at all to Chu's surprise, some other journal with some relevance to the subject printed an article with his exact claim, but made by someone else, two weeks before Chu's original article was to be published.

Then, right at the deadline for submitting minor typographical corrections (3 days I think), he 'corrected' his submission to YBaCuO. Hey, what's an extra 'b' ? Yttrium, Ytterbium, no big difference.

The journal(s) had egg on their face, the corrupt 'scientist' was discredited, and hilarity ensued.

The journal he submitted to wouldn't have any egg on their face. The other might be emberassed, but they didn't really do anything wrong either, besides print an inaccurate article. Hopefully the reviewing scientist, on the other hand, was censured and discredited for all time.

Usually this sort of thing happens in a less egregious way. Say, the corrupt scientist gets the article for review, and wants to do some similar work/is already doing some similar work. To get his article out at the same time or soon after (which makes his ideas seem more original and prestigious), he sits on his review or recommends useless revisions to delay the article. Every now and then it becomes obvious that's happened, but it's hard to prove wrongdoing.

Yeah this happened a few years ago with Michael Mann "fixing" one of his previous papers with all the fixes mentioned in a paper submitted by a skeptic for publication, without attributing a single thing the skeptic said to him, and with the journal the skeptic submitted to rejecting the paper the same week Mann came out with his fixes. Yet even today he is still getting white washed by his university, and the rest of the AGW industrial complex.

Cadgy scientists make extraordinary claims very slowly. First releasing "anomalous data" papers, carefully not making claims, only later - after the data is undisputed - starting to make claims about it.

It allows a fast & loose paper writer to steal the theoretical thunder, but it also lets you keep your university job, I guess.

I have only now come across this forum and see that my work is being discussed. Unfortunately, instead of challenging the physics you made deductions which are totally wrong.

Since I have discovered superconduction at room temperature and FINALLY got Semiconductor Science and Technology to publish it, I have clearly been banned from publishing anything more. The reason why it took SST so long to accept the articles is NOT because I have had to rewrite ANYTHING. The reason was that not a single referee was willing to allow publication EVEN THOUGH NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD PROVE MY PHYSICS WRONG.

Fortunately one of their editors Dr. Jackman found this an impossible state of affairs and decided to publish it in the interest of science. He got flak for doing this and was asked "how can you publish manuscripts which YOU KNOW MUST BE WRONG!" He offered these critics space in the journal if they can prove where the manuscripts "must be wrong". After 7 years nobody could do so yet!

Since then I have been consistently blocked from publishing anything in any scientific journal. For this reason I was forced to write a book. It was in "overblown" style since I tried to do all the mathematics required to understand how superconduction really works. Unfortunately I used a very expensive publisher and have had to stop selling this book through my website. I hope that soon (September) I will be able to sell the last copies of this book at a reduced price.

At the same time my second book will be launched which is in a style aimed at intelligent people who still have common sense. It seems such people are not in charge of physics at present. This has become necessary since I am still blocked from publishing any theory or model that questions the BCS model based on Cooper pairs, even though my model allows one to predict which properties a material must have to be able to superconduct at a certain temperature: Bernd Matthias has repeatedly pointed out that it is exactly here where BCS fails: As Pauli would say: "It is not even wrong!"

Another aspect which BCS cannot explain is how an applied electric field is cancelled within a superconductor even when a current is flowing. My moel can, but all manuscripts in which I point this out has been rejected: AS one refree wrote: "I am not an expert... but would be surprised if the BCS model cannot explain this!" That kind of sums it up: At present physivs journals, In then is case Proc. Roy. Sc. A, ask incompetents who are not "experts" to evaluate a manuscript.

In closing: After I had discovered superconduction at room temperature De Beers called in the so-called "experts" who advised them that I cannot be correct. De Beers were then not willing to fund this reseach any more and since that time I am totally on my own.

johanfprins wrote:Since I have discovered superconduction at room temperature and FINALLY got Semiconductor Science and Technology to publish it, I have clearly been banned from publishing anything more. The reason why it took SST so long to accept the articles is NOT because I have had to rewrite ANYTHING. The reason was that not a single referee was willing to allow publication EVEN THOUGH NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD PROVE MY PHYSICS WRONG.

Yes, but could somebody duplicate your experiment and achieve the same result, within a margin of error?

That, not the physics explanation you use, should be the determining factor in whether your work is sound or not. If the effect is duplicable, and unexplainable with current theory, then the theory must be revised.

But announcing the theoretical explanation contrary to current theory at the same time as an unverified experimental result will just get you in trouble.

WizWom wrote:Yes, but could somebody duplicate your experiment and achieve the same result, within a margin of error?

I cannot force anybody to repeat the experiment: However, I know that our electricity utility company ESKOM hired our "expert" on superconduction here in South Africa, Prof. Terry Doyle, to repeat the experiment . It is a fact that he could reproduce all my results and even more. He also took photographs of the phase. When he applied a voltage on the anode and reached the critical value at which the extracted electrons reach the anode, he could photograph at first sparks flying around, and then SUDDENLY a dark rod of micron size appeared connecting the diamond surface with the anode. An equilibrium current then flowed with no more sparks flying around.

I do not know the rest of the story except that Prof. Doyle could not eliminate contamination in his system. In our system we could eliminate contamination by first touching the anode to the diamond and only then applying the voltage and opening up the gap very slowly. This requires a spring loaded anode so as not to squash the anode onto thje diamond. Prof. Doyle's apparatus does not have this feature: He thus wants to claim that the contact is caused by some sort of contamination which forms REPRODUCIBLY every time. One should note that if he accepts that it is superconduction, most of his publications over the past 40 years which relied on the BCS model being correct, will suddenly become null and void.

WizWom wrote:That, not the physics explanation you use, should be the determining factor in whether your work is sound or not. If the effect is duplicable, and unexplainable with current theory, then the theory must be revised.

It is thus duplicable: What is now required is to agree on a what is happening: There are ONLY two possibilities:

(i) Contamination: I can assure you that we did very careful measurements to see whether this is possible, and found that the amount of residual contamination after each experiment could not explain the result. As already mentioned when first touching the anode to the diamond in order to eliminate the sparks that Doyle has photographed, we got no contamination at all.

(ii) The explanation that fits like a glove follows from the impeccable interface physics that is used every day to design transistors. Since the diamond has NEA one starts of with a dipole layer over the surface of the diamond: Electrons are ejected to leave a positive depletion layer behind. This dipole is required to cancel the electric field at the surface which would have been there owing to the offset between thee conduction band and the vacuum level. When now applying a voltage with the anode, this dipole layer increases in size to also cancel this extra applied field: i.e. the width of the depletion layer increases and the number of electrons outside the surface also increases. Equilibrium is reached when the dipole again cancels the field (including the applied field). When extracting the dipole so that the external electrons just reach the anode, one will still have that the field within the dipole is cancelled when equilibrium has been extablished. When now increasing the applied voltage just a bit more: Electrons start to cascade into the anode, and since the Fermi-level in the anode is below the vacuum level, an electric field now again appears within the dipole. If the depletion layer does not become too wide, equilibrium will be reached when the electron density between the diamond and anode reaches a high enough value to do exactly this: i.e. cancel the applied electric field. Before reaching equilibrium one finds that the current jumps around erratically: Sparks can be seen owing to electrons striking the anode. But as soon as equilibrium is reached this behaviour stops: An equilibrium current flows and Prof, Doyle sees a black rod appearing as from nowhere. The point to make is that for a thin enough depletion layer the electric-field btween the diamond surface and the anode MUST be exactly ZERO. If not, no solid state transistor should EVER have functioned. The further point to make is that although there is no field in the electron phase, an equilibrium current STILL flows around the circuit. It should be noted that there has NEVER existed any proof that an electric field within a superconductor is exactly cancelled, while in my experiment the proof is incontrovertible.

WizWom wrote:But announcing the theoretical explanation contrary to current theory at the same time as an unverified experimental result will just get you in trouble.

Firstly the result has been verified by Terry Doyle. I know it is not in the public domain; but that is out of my hands since the results belong to ESKOM. Secondly I have handed out modified diamonds to laboratories to repeat my experiment. So far they were far too busy with their own interests to spend the money: Neither can I keep it up to give diamonds away for free.

But the most important fact is that I should have been able to predict the result WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION, since the impeccable solid state physics on which electronic devices are based demand that it must be so.

It is ironic that the only experiment in history which proves without doubt that there can be no electric field within a phase while a current is flowing, and which can give a reason why the electric field is cancelled, has been rejected by the physics church on superconduction for 10 years already.